Should the Vatican Pay for Abuse?

TIME Magazine ^ | Jul. 18, 2007 | JEFF ISRAELY

[Alex Murphy]

Depending on the subject at hand, the day-to-day running of the worldwide Catholic Church can resemble either a sort of centralized sacred politburo or a loose confederation of autonomous dioceses. If you prefer a business model, it's top-down management vs. franchising. Though imperfect, these analogies can help address a lingering question in the wake of the Los Angles archdiocese's record $660 million settlement with victims of clergy sex abuse: What is the Vatican's responsibility?

In Los Angeles, as in previous cases in the U.S. and elsewhere, the local diocese has essentially shouldered all of the administrative blame — and taken the financial hit — for the priest perpetrators and the bishops who failed to prevent their crimes, with no reference or responsibility assigned to the hierarchy in Rome. Still, victims' lawsuits frequently cite the Holy See, the Vatican-based juridical headquarters of the 1.1 billion-strong Catholic Church, and the Pope himself.

Since the issue exploded in 2002 with the scandal in the Archdiocese of Boston, it has been difficult to force the Vatican to respond directly to the innumerable court cases that have arisen, since, according to the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, the Holy See is outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. But two recent cases, in Oregon and Kentucky, have cracked open the door for the first time to the possibility that the Vatican could one day be held financially responsible and officials in Rome could be forced to testify. Lawyers are trying to prove in both cases that the abusive priests can be considered employees of the Holy See. A final decision on whether the Vatican is liable for any monetary damages is probably years away. However, victims' advocates are encouraged that judges in both the Portland and Louisville lawsuits have not tossed out the cases on ....

[Publius6961]

But two recent cases, in Oregon and Kentucky, have cracked open the door for the first time to the possibility that the Vatican could one day be held financially responsible and officials in Rome could be forced to testify. Lawyers are trying to prove in both cases that the abusive priests can be considered employees of the Holy See.

Got to give the bottom dwellers an "A" for creativity, but this is doomed to fail.
This is transparently a desperate search for the deepest pockets, and the Vatican is viewed (by many, and erroneously) as a fantastic realm of untapped wealth.

I would direct the lawyers to a much closer and liquid list of responsible perps: All the militant GLB&T activist group and their endowment sponsors...

Just saying.

[Salvation]

Speaking from Oregon, I don’t think it could happen. Consider the heirarchy of the church. Local first, etc. And it is slower than government.

[bronx2]

I believe that the Concordat of 1929 between Italy and the Vatican only gives the latter a “Life Estate” in those art treasures and so the sale of said items would be forbidden. The people of Italy retained the “remainder” interest and thus they are the only entity who could sell these precious items. It is a common but mistaken belief that the Vatican has complete title to these works and as such is very wealthy.

[tiki]

I don’t know about other dioceses but in our’s each parish is a corporation.